In the U.S., fewer newborn baby boys were circumcised before leaving the hospital compared to 30 years ago. What’s going on?

In 1979, close to two-thirds of boys in the West underwent a hospital circumcision after birth, but by 2010 that percentage dropped to around 58%.

The numbers come from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) report, which shows circumcision rates have dropped by 10% overall in the 32 year period. And it’s not just the U.S. that is experiencing fewer circumcisions; western nations in general are seeing drops, but the CDC analysis also shows that rates have fluctuated widely in the U.S., and that there are regional differences in the popularity of the operation.

One reason for the ups and downs in surgery rates may have to do with flip-flopping guidance from experts about whether circumcisions are worthwhile.

The rates started dropping in the 1980s, but picked back up in the 1990s, only to drop again at the start of the 21st century. Those dips and peaks may reflect the fact that in the 1970s, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) task force reported that there was no medical evidence that routine circumcision was needed for newborns. It revised this opinion in 1989, citing some potential benefits for the the procedure. In 1999 the Academy once again released a policy statement summing up the potential benefits of the surgery — lower rates of urinary tract infections as well as sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV — but was still reluctant to advocate circumcision, saying that more evidence was needed to justify such a position from a medical perspective. The AAP advised parents instead to make the decision based on their cultural or religious beliefs.

In August, the Academy confirmed this stance by saying that while the benefits outweighed the risks, the decision should be made by individual parents who consider the medical pluses and the potential side effects, which include bleeding, infection at the circumcision site and irritation of the glans, located at the tip of the penis.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

“I’ve been in practice for over 40 years and there wasn’t any question about whether to circumcise in the ‘good old days’ because parents were worried about what might happen in the locker room in middle school or high school,” Thomas McInerny, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told Bloomberg News. “But circumcision is less frequent in Europe and Asia, so in time as more immigration has occurred, there are more uncircumcised floating around in locker rooms, so you’re not going to get an embarrassing situation.”

But there are may be other factors at work as well. As Reuters reports, a Medicaid program that covers low income patients no longer pays for circumcisions in 18 U.S. states, and insurers are slow to cover it without significant medical justifications. There is also the possibiity that more women are giving birth and having procedures outside of hospital settings; the NCHS report did not include these procedures, nor did it include those done, after discharge, as part of religious ceremonies in the Jewish and Muslim faiths. More women may simply be choosing to give birth outside of the hospital, or shortened hospital stays after delivery may make it easier to perform circumcisions at clinics.

In the developing world in particular, however, circumcision is encouraged as a way to cut down on infectious diseases — specifically, HIV. The World Health Organization includes circumcision as one of the ways to fight spread of HIV, and cite studies that found the operation can lower risk of infection by up to 60%. The most recent, published In April, reported that circumcised Ugandan men harbored less bacteria in their penile environment that can transfer the HIV virus. The men also had 81% less bacteria overall compared to those who weren’t circumcised, and that could dramatically improve their ability to fight infections.

In the U.S., the CDC says circumcision rates are highest in the Midwest, where about two-thirds of newborn boys are circumcised before being discharged, and most varied in the West, where San Francisco and Santa Monica have even proposed banning the procedure. The governor signed a bill prohibiting such bans, and rates have been inching up again since hitting a low of 31% in 2003.

As the favourite
spectator hobby in European union, it isn't a wonder we now have many
footballing (soccer) apps available on the AppStore intended for Apple
devices such as iPhone 4S.
http://www.scorespro.com/soccer/fixtures/

Time magazine was one of the first to erroneously term FGM "circumcision," which cause people to think removing the foreskin is any less of a human rights violation than removing the HOOD of the clitoris (much more common practice).

circumcision is wrong: it takes away the person's choice to know what their own genitalia feels and looks like before removing 20,000 nerve endings, and causes people to say "it's gross" without knowing what their own penis looked like when it was complete, or ever considering that it causes more damage than removing the hood of the clitoris, simply because of its size.

thank god my Jewish mother protected me from my christian father's beliefs that "all Jews be circumcised." you can think for yourselves: they cut off part of your body, not your mind.

Let's focus on the real victims here. The millions of
voiceless, defenseless, innocent children who were mutilated and still are mutilated every day all over the world.

I don't understand how
someone can think cutting a piece of your body, or your child's body and
not just any part of the body, but the most sensitive, nerve riddled,
intimate, private part of the body is not bodily harm.

IF IT WASN'T BODILY HARM, YOU WOULDN'T BLEED !

Blood
means harm. Blood always means harm, how can people be this
stupid...well it's not really a question of how it's more a question of
how come in this day and age, there are people that still do this to
children that aren't even old enough to speak for themselves yet.

I'm so happy I am circumsized. Study after study shows shows its cleaner and helps prevent the spread of HIV. The only people who want to ban it are libtards out in San Francisco who think that they know what's best for everyone else...

I was circumcised at birth and can honestly say that I do feel "less than a whole man", nor has it in any way interfered my sexual satisfaction. Frankly, guys who feel that the absence of a foreskin has in some way emasculated them need help.

In Western Europe where rates of circumcision are below 10% rates of HPV, HIV, STDs are lower than in the USA where 90% of adult males are circumcised.

That is proof enough that the only things accomplished by cutting the healthy flesh off babies is a profit for the doctors a loss of the human right to body integrity for the baby, and an unheathy obsession with a baby boys private anatomy. The only person touching a child's penis should be the kid himself until he grows up and is ready to share sex with another.

Complications from circumcision are common and largely unreported and misunderstood.

Parents, you simply dont have the right to cut part of your son off.

If you believe in God, do you think god made a mistake on every little boy? That's quite an assumption on your part. Assuming you know better than God.

If you believe in evolution, do you think that every male mammal was meant to have foreskin except humans?

mother nature made a mistake with us did she? We don't circumcise dogs, horses.Whales live a healthy life with their foreskin intact. It's a ridiculous notion you have to cut a part of a body off to make it perform better.

The male foreskin contains 20,000 specialized nerve-endings. In comparison, the female clitoris contains only 8,000. Why would any parent want to rob his child, the future man, of a fully-functioning penis? His healthy body should be left alone to use and enjoy as God/Nature intended.

My two sons were born in Southern California in the early 80's. Thanks to my European-born husband's insistence and my rudimentary (pre-internet) research, they left the hospital WHOLE. They have never suffered from these much-feared "infections", they have no problems getting girls, and they are extremely grateful to us that we left them intact.

Civilized countries around the world look upon us Americans, still routinely mutilating our newborn boys, with the same horror and disgust with which we look upon cultures who mutilate their girls.

"When it comes to holding down perfectly healthy babies and severing flesh from their bodies, how much can you cut away before it becomes morally wrong?"

The truth of course is that parents -finally- little by little are getting smarter about those pediatric smarty pants with their constraints and lancets ready, and they are realizing that being born "whole" is the way to be.

There are various forms of female genital mutilation, one of the most common of which is the removal of the clitoral hood (prepuce). This is completely analogous to male circumcision (the removal of the p*nile prepuce), and and is banned by law.

Protection of genital integrity should obviously apply equally to both sexes.

I love how after de Witt discredited the "epithelial Langerhans cell" hypothesis by demonstrating that those same cells produce langerin, which is very hostile to viruses such as HIV, they've changed hypotheses AGAIN. But why not? I suppose homeopaths have given us fifty different ways water has memory, each more insane than the last.

Previous hypotheses included that the foreskin didn't have ENOUGH epithelial Langerhans cells, and that keratinization of the glans protects the penis (but doesn't reduce sensation, oh no, can't have that). Worse, the initial claim from Fink comes from the spurious notion that uncircumcised men are less likely to be exclusively heterosexual, even though HIV spreads more rapidly among gay men because you can be a receptive partner, a 'bottom', one day; and an insertive partner, a 'top', the next. More recent claims have focused on the claim that men in sub-Saharan Africa are less likely to be circumcised, though most men in sub-Saharan Africa are circumcised! (HIV in sub-Saharan Africa is largely explained by the great deal of HIV denial in sub-Saharan Africa.)

Now they've gone to the bacterial flora on the penis. No explanation as to which bacteria, much less how this would work. It's not even wrong.

This is what passes for journalism?! This article covers the alleged "benefits" of male genital cutting (euphemistically called circumcision) and links to two references in support of the practice, while including a brief mention of opposition to the procedure. There is nothing about functions of the prepuce (foreskin) or the ethical implications of removing healthy, functional erogenous tissue from a non-consenting minor. Nothing about the benefits of being genitally intact. The cultural bias of the American medical community and American journalists on this topic is stunning - they are firmly plugged in to "The Matrix." Readers should seek out non-American media articles to have an unbiased view of this issue.

Friends, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics made a deliberately deceptive statement to Time Magazine for its Aug. 22, 2013 article about the decline of genital surgery in the United States. Why can I state that it was DELIBERATELY DECEPTIVE with such certainty? Here's his quote: "Thomas McInerny, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told Bloomberg News. “But circumcision is less frequent in Europe and Asia..." Pardon me, Thomas McInery, it's rare to non-existent, and you could not phrase it that way without being very conscious of your own misstatement. Intactivists will see you in Orlando, Florida, buddy.

Its about creating a permanent tribal bond. Parents must hand over their child to authorities for sexual mutilation out of fear their child will be a societal outcast. This creates allegance to a larger social structure rather then to the family. It is similar to hazing. Its a form of stockholm syndrome. The idea there is more health risks to not doing it is to doubt evolution and/or creation. Many people have issues from fungus / atheletes foot growing under their toenails. There can be a better health benefits case made for removing humans toenails. There is nothing going on under a foreskin that is not going on in a vagina. Its not surprising the cultures which brought us and continue to advocate this ritual are patriarchial and look down on woman. To these cultures woman is unclean, just like the uncircumcised is.

It was an interesting article but one thing that was not covered, which could contribute, perhaps a lot, to the falling rate is that in nearly 20 states, Medicaid has stopped funding circumcisions. And nearly half of all births in the U.S. are Medicaid-funded.

@CameronWilliams Glad you're happy with it. I wish I had a choice; I would not have chosen it but that choice was made for me before I was old enough to understand or consent. I would not ban the procedure, but I would support a law that says you have to wait until the person receiving the operation is old enough to consent. Since you are so happy with it, I'm sure you would have chosen to have the procedure as a teenager.

@CameronWilliams Um you still have to wear a condom or limit sexual activity with multiple partners , also their are countries and regions (East asia , Europe Latin America) where it is not as common and Hiv is significantly lower...Like the Use of DDT indoors in African countries as a cheap alternative last resort I can see this maybe applying only to Africa...but Just as I wouldnt want DDT to spray for insects here where we have the luxury of better choices so be it with the obsolete practice of circumcision.

that being said its okay if you are happy with being circumcised but doesnt mean it should continue any more then female circumcision who some suffer from "denial of harm" and are "okay with it".

@expatcando Dumb ass, how do you know if it has interfered with your "sexual satisfaction" if you have no idea what it feels like to NOT be circumcised? I mean the most basic of critical thinking skills..... some people need them

@expatcando So forced cutting of non consenting children is not the problem, the problem are the victims of Male Genital Mutilation who were traumatized when they were knife raped as children against their will, without their consent ?

@ernstfriedrich Oh please. In Africa circumcision is down to help curtail the spread of HIV. If you don't want to get circumsised then don't. But don't tell me what I have the right to not do with my child.

@ernstfriedrich The issue isn't so much STDs as UTIs, where rates are higher in Europe. I was circumcised as a newborn and don't recall the procedure and don't feel in any way less whole. I frankly could care less. I appreciate the particularly in Germany you have certain hangups with circumcision and its association with Jewry but that's your concern. This debate is all hype.

@RebeccaFine The AAP report was taken to task by the KNMG, among other European medical associations. tl;dr they hired people who were so fanatically pro-circumcision that one actually denied the connection between metzitzah b'peh and herpes in New York's Haredi community, while another was pro-clitoridectomy. We have more effective preventive measures, such as condoms and vaccines, for every disease they claimed is prevented by circumcision.

Trigger warning below this

The people advocating circumcision creep me out personally. Daniel Halperin (who wrote a wonderful bit of Mary Sue fiction called Tinderbox, in which our hero, a Latin American studies PhD, teaches all us poor medical researchers how benighted we are for saying "abstain, be faithful, or use condoms") recommends people go to a site all about the "erotic" aspects of circumcision to learn more about the procedure.

@ShpongleEyez@ernstfriedrich And say that HIV is rising rapidly among those who have gone to get circumcised. Those numbers speak volumes, you are right!Sucks for all those going to get circumcised for no reason, huh?!?

@Paletero_@RomeoAure That is only true in some isolated places where there are no medical worker. In Rural and Urban areas, its illegal to do the circumcision procedure if you are not a Doctor or atleast a Nurse. Sometimes it is offered free by doctors and local governmen for those who cannot afford it mostly every start of summer.